https://consult.defra.gov.uk/elm/elmpolicyconsultation/supporting_documents/ELM Policy Discussion Document 230620.pdf
PP 8 - 10:
Lessons learned from previous schemes Over the last two years we have been developing high level scheme design proposals, building on lessons learnt from previous schemes and collating evidence to inform design decisions. We will build these lessons into our scheme design proactively, reinforcing elements demonstrated to be successful and learning from past shortcomings. Some of the key lessons we have learned are:
a) We need high levels of uptake in ELM: if schemes are undersubscribed, as has happened with Countryside Stewardship, an uneven distribution of uptake and environmental outcome delivery is generated. ELM must work for all types of land managers and farm types, payment rates must be attractive to encourage participation, and it must be marketed effectively.
b) We need to make objectives clear for land managers: previous schemes have generally been most effective when they have had clear targets or objectives that are easily understood and supported. The classic example of this is the success of previous schemes in reversing the decline of the cirl bunting, and there are many others.
c) Land managers must have access to effective advisory services: advisory services play an important role in marketing schemes, promoting understanding and assisting in planning and implementation. There must be an effective advisory service to support ELM and we must identify where 1-1 advice could be most valuable. There is no “one size fits all” solution for advice and ELM may require more than one approach to the provision of advice (such as 1-1 advice and / or 1 to many), depending on the target outcome(s) and circumstances on the ground. 9
d) We must recognise positive actions and outcomes of land managers: once land managers have joined ELM and have started implementing their land management activities, we should seek to recognise and promote where their activities have generated good outcomes. Current schemes penalise poor delivery but do not balance this with positive recognition. This recognition is crucial in encouraging land managers to continue in their efforts, perhaps be more ambitious and demonstrate to all how successful outcomes can be delivered. Change is always difficult and land managers need to feel supported rather than targeted.
e) We need to balance delivering improvement with rewarding existing good practice: past policies have demonstrated the danger that by limiting payments to the adoption of additional actions, existing high-quality features and habitats may be destroyed. For ELM, we need to strike the right balance between rewarding and sustaining current best practice and encouraging new take up of environmental actions.
f) We should seek to create a layer of local prioritisation within ELM: farmers, foresters and other land managers benefit from being closely involved in identifying how their local area can help deliver environmental priorities (both national and local). In delivering ELM, we could consider devolving some of the responsibility for identifying local priorities and local planning, and allow local areas and their stakeholders to have a bigger role in deciding how both local and national priorities can be best delivered.
g) We must ensure ELM is not overly prescriptive: while we want to ensure land managers conduct activities on their land that we know are effective in delivering environmental outcomes, we should avoid mandating unnecessary levels of prescription over how they deliver these activities.
h) We need to ensure our compliance requirements and approach to enforcement within ELM are proportionate: under previous schemes, the compliance requirements placed on land managers were overly complex and demanding. This has reduced scheme participation (especially on farms with the smallest eligible area). We need to ensure that ELM’s compliance and reporting requirements are sensible and that demonstrating compliance isn’t unnecessarily burdensome. We also need to make sure that how we enforce compliance is proportionate: in the past, where land managers have been found to be in breach of their agreements, the approach to enforcement has been overly-punitive and harsh. We need to take a proportionate approach to instances of non- 10 compliance, using a range of enforcement mechanisms, and in the first instance, work to support compliance.
i) The applicant needs to have confidence in the delivery process: the decision on whether to enter into a scheme or not is based on a combination of simplicity of application, payment rates, reliability of payments (timeliness and fear of reclaims) and customer’s fear of penalties for breaking unrealistic or complex scheme rules. CS was not fully developed as an end-to-end process before it was launched and has faced difficulties at application, agreement and claim stages; this has reduced confidence in the scheme.
PP 8 - 10:
Lessons learned from previous schemes Over the last two years we have been developing high level scheme design proposals, building on lessons learnt from previous schemes and collating evidence to inform design decisions. We will build these lessons into our scheme design proactively, reinforcing elements demonstrated to be successful and learning from past shortcomings. Some of the key lessons we have learned are:
a) We need high levels of uptake in ELM: if schemes are undersubscribed, as has happened with Countryside Stewardship, an uneven distribution of uptake and environmental outcome delivery is generated. ELM must work for all types of land managers and farm types, payment rates must be attractive to encourage participation, and it must be marketed effectively.
b) We need to make objectives clear for land managers: previous schemes have generally been most effective when they have had clear targets or objectives that are easily understood and supported. The classic example of this is the success of previous schemes in reversing the decline of the cirl bunting, and there are many others.
c) Land managers must have access to effective advisory services: advisory services play an important role in marketing schemes, promoting understanding and assisting in planning and implementation. There must be an effective advisory service to support ELM and we must identify where 1-1 advice could be most valuable. There is no “one size fits all” solution for advice and ELM may require more than one approach to the provision of advice (such as 1-1 advice and / or 1 to many), depending on the target outcome(s) and circumstances on the ground. 9
d) We must recognise positive actions and outcomes of land managers: once land managers have joined ELM and have started implementing their land management activities, we should seek to recognise and promote where their activities have generated good outcomes. Current schemes penalise poor delivery but do not balance this with positive recognition. This recognition is crucial in encouraging land managers to continue in their efforts, perhaps be more ambitious and demonstrate to all how successful outcomes can be delivered. Change is always difficult and land managers need to feel supported rather than targeted.
e) We need to balance delivering improvement with rewarding existing good practice: past policies have demonstrated the danger that by limiting payments to the adoption of additional actions, existing high-quality features and habitats may be destroyed. For ELM, we need to strike the right balance between rewarding and sustaining current best practice and encouraging new take up of environmental actions.
f) We should seek to create a layer of local prioritisation within ELM: farmers, foresters and other land managers benefit from being closely involved in identifying how their local area can help deliver environmental priorities (both national and local). In delivering ELM, we could consider devolving some of the responsibility for identifying local priorities and local planning, and allow local areas and their stakeholders to have a bigger role in deciding how both local and national priorities can be best delivered.
g) We must ensure ELM is not overly prescriptive: while we want to ensure land managers conduct activities on their land that we know are effective in delivering environmental outcomes, we should avoid mandating unnecessary levels of prescription over how they deliver these activities.
h) We need to ensure our compliance requirements and approach to enforcement within ELM are proportionate: under previous schemes, the compliance requirements placed on land managers were overly complex and demanding. This has reduced scheme participation (especially on farms with the smallest eligible area). We need to ensure that ELM’s compliance and reporting requirements are sensible and that demonstrating compliance isn’t unnecessarily burdensome. We also need to make sure that how we enforce compliance is proportionate: in the past, where land managers have been found to be in breach of their agreements, the approach to enforcement has been overly-punitive and harsh. We need to take a proportionate approach to instances of non- 10 compliance, using a range of enforcement mechanisms, and in the first instance, work to support compliance.
i) The applicant needs to have confidence in the delivery process: the decision on whether to enter into a scheme or not is based on a combination of simplicity of application, payment rates, reliability of payments (timeliness and fear of reclaims) and customer’s fear of penalties for breaking unrealistic or complex scheme rules. CS was not fully developed as an end-to-end process before it was launched and has faced difficulties at application, agreement and claim stages; this has reduced confidence in the scheme.
Last edited: